Citations

PURPOSE Survival for patients with melanoma has recently improved. The propensity of melanoma to metastasize to the brain remains a common and serious feature of this disease. The purposes of this study were to evaluate prognostic factors for patients with newly diagnosed melanoma brain metastases (MBMs) in a large cohort treated with modern multimodal therapies, compare those results with those in prior eras, and update the Melanoma Graded Prognostic Assessment (GPA). METHODS Univariable and multivariable (MVA) analyses of prognostic factors and treatments associated with survival were performed on 1,796 patients with newly diagnosed MBM treated between January 01, 2015, and December 31, 2021, using a multi-institutional retrospective database. Multiple imputation was used to address missingness of potential predictors. Significant variables in combined MVA were used to update the Melanoma GPA. Comparisons were made with legacy cohorts. RESULTS Median survivals for cohorts A (1985-2007, n = 481), B (2006-2015, n = 823), and C (2015-2021, n = 1,796) were 6.7, 9.8, and 16.6 months and median follow-up times were 40.1, 43.6, and 48.8 months, respectively. In combined MVA, significant prognostic factors for survival were higher Karnofsky Performance Status, fewer MBMs, absence of extracranial metastases, lower serum lactate dehydrogenase, and no immunotherapy before MBM. These factors were incorporated into the updated Melanoma GPA. The combined median and 3-year survivals for patients with GPA 0-1, 1.5-2, and 2.5-4.0 were 5.4, 13.2, and 43.2 months and 12.4%, 28.8%, and 51.6%, respectively. CONCLUSION Prognostic factors have changed and survival has improved for patients with MBM but varies widely by GPA. The updated Melanoma GPA calculator (BrainMetGPA), available free online, can be used to estimate survival, individualize treatment, stratify clinical trials, guide surveillance, and augment clinical trial eligibility. Multidisciplinary treatment is essential. Trials are needed to elucidate the optimal sequencing of various therapeutic modalities.

Abstract Purpose: Pharmacologic ascorbate (P-AscH−) is hypothesized to be an iron (Fe)-dependent tumor-specific adjuvant to chemoradiation in treating glioblastoma (GBM). This study determined the efficacy of combining P-AscH− with radiation and temozolomide in a phase II clinical trial while simultaneously investigating a mechanism-based, noninvasive biomarker in T2* mapping to predict GBM response to P-AscH− in humans. Patients and Methods: The single-arm phase II clinical trial (NCT02344355) enrolled 55 subjects, with analysis performed 12 months following the completion of treatment. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were estimated with the Kaplan–Meier method and compared across patient subgroups with log-rank tests. Forty-nine of 55 subjects were evaluated using T2*-based MRI to assess its utility as an Fe-dependent biomarker. Results: Median OS was estimated to be 19.6 months [90% confidence interval (CI), 15.7–26.5 months], a statistically significant increase compared with historic control patients (14.6 months). Subjects with initial T2* relaxation < 50 ms were associated with a significant increase in PFS compared with T2*-high subjects (11.2 months vs. 5.7 months, P < 0.05) and a trend toward increased OS (26.5 months vs. 17.5 months). These results were validated in preclinical in vitro and in vivo model systems. Conclusions: P-AscH− combined with temozolomide and radiotherapy has the potential to significantly enhance GBM survival. T2*-based MRI assessment of tumor iron content is a prognostic biomarker for GBM clinical outcomes. See related commentary by Nabavizadeh and Bagley, p. 255

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Meningeal solitary fibrous tumors (SFTs) comprise 0.4% of primary central nervous system neoplasms and carry metastatic potential. Disease course and optimal management are largely unknown, and there is currently no literature rigorously describing neurological outcomes in surgically managed SFTs. We present one of the largest craniospinal SFT series, analyze patient outcomes, and extensively review the associated literature. METHODS: All surgically managed SFTs at our institution between January 2005 and March 2023 were retrospectively reviewed. Patient demographics, tumor and radiographic features, treatment, and clinical outcomes were collected. Neurological function was quantified using Frankel grade and Neurologic Assessment in Neuro-Oncology scores. Descriptive statistics, multivariate analysis, log-rank test, and Kaplan–Meier survival analysis were performed. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients satisfied inclusion criteria. Tumor locations included 15 supratentorial, three infratentorial, and three spinal. All patients underwent surgical resection, and 16 (76.2%) underwent radiation. Six (28.6%) patients had tumor recurrence, and three (14.3%) developed metastasis. Younger age and higher postoperative Frankel grade were significantly associated with increased overall survival (OS) ( P = .011, P = .002, respectively). All patients symptomatically improved or stabilized after surgery, and Neurologic Assessment in Neuro-Oncology score ( P = .001) and functional status significantly improved postoperatively (Karnofsky Performance Status: 65.2 ± 25.2 vs 91.4 ± 13.5, P = .001). Sex, adjuvant radiation, and extent of resection were not significantly associated with OS. CONCLUSION: SFT of the central nervous system is a rare entity with a variable clinical course. Surgical resection was associated with improved postoperative functional and neurological status. Higher postoperative neurological function was significantly associated with OS. Further studies are warranted to validate a standardized treatment algorithm and investigate the efficacy of adjuvant radiation in SFT.

PURPOSE Conventional wisdom has rendered patients with brain metastases ineligible for clinical trials for fear that poor survival could mask the benefit of otherwise promising treatments. Our group previously published the diagnosis-specific Graded Prognostic Assessment (GPA). Updates with larger contemporary cohorts using molecular markers and newly identified prognostic factors have been published. The purposes of this work are to present all the updated indices in a single report to guide treatment choice, stratify research, and define an eligibility quotient to expand eligibility. METHODS A multi-institutional database of 6,984 patients with newly diagnosed brain metastases underwent multivariable analyses of prognostic factors and treatments associated with survival for each primary site. Significant factors were used to define the updated GPA. GPAs of 4.0 and 0.0 correlate with the best and worst prognoses, respectively. RESULTS Significant prognostic factors varied by diagnosis and new prognostic factors were identified. Those factors were incorporated into the updated GPA with robust separation ( P < .01) between subgroups. Survival has improved, but varies widely by GPA for patients with non–small-cell lung, breast, melanoma, GI, and renal cancer with brain metastases from 7-47 months, 3-36 months, 5-34 months, 3-17 months, and 4-35 months, respectively. CONCLUSION Median survival varies widely and our ability to estimate survival for patients with brain metastases has improved. The updated GPA (available free at brainmetgpa.com) provides an accurate tool with which to estimate survival, individualize treatment, and stratify clinical trials. Instead of excluding patients with brain metastases, enrollment should be encouraged and those trials should be stratified by the GPA to ensure those trials make appropriate comparisons. Furthermore, we recommend the expansion of eligibility to allow for the enrollment of patients with previously treated brain metastases who have a 50% or greater probability of an additional year of survival (eligibility quotient > 0.50).

Abstract Background Breast cancer treatment is based on estrogen receptors (ERs), progesterone receptors (PRs), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2). At the time of metastasis, receptor status can be discordant from that at initial diagnosis. The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence of discordance and its effect on survival and subsequent treatment in patients with breast cancer brain metastases (BCBM). Methods A retrospective database of 316 patients who underwent craniotomy for BCBM between 2006 and 2017 was created. Discordance was considered present if the ER, PR, or HER2 status differed between the primary tumor and the BCBM. Results The overall receptor discordance rate was 132/316 (42%), and the subtype discordance rate was 100/316 (32%). Hormone receptors (HR, either ER or PR) were gained in 40/160 (25%) patients with HR-negative primary tumors. HER2 was gained in 22/173 (13%) patients with HER2-negative primary tumors. Subsequent treatment was not adjusted for most patients who gained receptors—nonetheless, median survival (MS) improved but did not reach statistical significance (HR, 17–28 mo, P = 0.12; HER2, 15–19 mo, P = 0.39). MS for patients who lost receptors was worse (HR, 27–18 mo, P = 0.02; HER2, 30–18 mo, P = 0.08). Conclusions Receptor discordance between primary tumor and BCBM is common, adversely affects survival if receptors are lost, and represents a missed opportunity for use of effective treatments if receptors are gained. Receptor analysis of BCBM is indicated when clinically appropriate. Treatment should be adjusted accordingly. Key Points 1. Receptor discordance alters subtype in 32% of BCBM patients. 2. The frequency of receptor gain for HR and HER2 was 25% and 13%, respectively. 3. If receptors are lost, survival suffers. If receptors are gained, consider targeted treatment.

Abstract As anticancer therapies designed to target specific molecular pathways have been developed, it has become critical to develop methods to assess the response induced by such agents. Although traditional, anatomic CT, and MRI examinations are useful in many settings, increasing evidence suggests that these methods cannot answer the fundamental biologic and physiologic questions essential for assessment and, eventually, prediction of treatment response in the clinical trial setting, especially in the critical period soon after treatment is initiated. To optimally apply advances in quantitative imaging methods to trials of targeted cancer therapy, new infrastructure improvements are needed that incorporate these emerging techniques into the settings where they are most likely to have impact. In this review, we first elucidate the needs for therapeutic response assessment in the era of molecularly targeted therapy and describe how quantitative imaging can most effectively provide scientifically and clinically relevant data. We then describe the tools and methods required to apply quantitative imaging and provide concrete examples of work making these advances practically available for routine application in clinical trials. We conclude by proposing strategies to surmount barriers to wider incorporation of these quantitative imaging methods into clinical trials and, eventually, clinical practice. Our goal is to encourage and guide the oncology community to deploy standardized quantitative imaging techniques in clinical trials to further personalize care for cancer patients and to provide a more efficient path for the development of improved targeted therapies. Clin Cancer Res; 22(2); 284–90. ©2016 AACR.

Abstract Pretreatment evaluation is performed to determine the number, location, and size of the brain metastases and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the recommended imaging technique, particularly in patients being considered for surgery or stereotactic radiosurgery. A contiguous thin-cut volumetric MRI with gadolinium with newer gadolinium-based agents can improve detection of small brain metastases. A systemic workup and medical evaluation are important, given that subsequent treatment for the brain metastases will also depend on the extent of the extracranial disease and on the age and performance status of the patient. Patients with hydrocephalus or impending brain herniation should be started on high doses of corticosteroids and evaluated for possible neurosurgical intervention. Patients with moderate symptoms should receive approximately 4–8 mg/d of dexamethasone in divided doses. The routine use of corticosteroids in patients without neurologic symptoms is not necessary. There is no proven benefit of anticonvulsants in patient without seizures. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every 3 years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures by the panel. In those instances where evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment.